The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest

Vol: 32 Issue: 7 - Friday, May 07, 2004 - Plain Text

''I Hope it Isn't All For Nothing''
by Jack Kinsella

Last week, Ted Koppel's Nightline ran a special edition in which Koppell
read the names of the more than seven hundred servicemen who died in Iraq.

Koppel said the program was designed to 'honor' those who gave their all
in the service of their country.

The Nightline broadcast created a firestorm of controversy and one major
ABC affiliate refused to air it, citing it as 'blatant propaganda'.

(Wow!  The 'P' word!  I thought only right-wing lunatics believed ABC was
propaganda masquerading as news).

But Sinclair Broadcasting Group accurately noted that the broadcast was a
political statement "disguised as news content",  saying the program
"appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the
efforts of the United States in Iraq."

The liberals went ballistic, accusing the Sinclair Group of censoring the
broadcast because Sinclair is a supporter of the Bush administration.
The argument resonated in the public, providing us with today's object
lesson in how to apply the principles of mass mind control as outlined in
the pages of 'Mein Kampf'.

Military Families Speak Out, whose anti-war members have relatives or
loved ones in the military, condemned Sinclair's decision, saying it was
"dishonoring our troops and their families."

Follow this, carefully.  This 'firestorm' was deliberately set, and we'll
dissect it to see how.

The group's Web site posted one member's letter of opposition.

"The Sinclair Broadcast group is trying to undermine the lives of our
soldiers killed in Iraq. By censoring `Nightline' they want to hide the
toll the war on Iraq is having on thousands of soldiers and their
families, like mine," wrote Jane Bright of West Hills, Calif. (Her son,
Sgt. Evan Ashcraft, was killed in July near Mosul, Iraq.)

The Associated Press helpfully tracked down and included another military
family member who also bought the circular logic of the propaganda
campaign.

"We should be honoring all the men and women who have served," said Ivan
Medina, 22, of Hinesville, Ga., who was with the Army in Iraq and whose
twin brother, Irving, died there. "My hat goes off to `Nightline.'"

Nightline said its broadcast was planned to 'honor' our war dead.  Since
Sinclair saw through it and refused to carry the broadcast, the
counter-charge becomes Sinclair 'dishonoring' our troops by 'censoring'
the broadcast to 'protect the Bush administration' -- or something like
that.  Unravelling it is simply a matter of applying the 'if' - 'then'
equation.

IF Nightline's purpose was to 'honor' our war dead, and not to discredit
the administration, THEN how does Sinclair's 'dishonoring' of our troops
amount to 'protecting' the administration by 'censoring' the broadcast?
How does paying homage to our heroes threaten the administration to the
degree it needs 'protection' through 'censorship'?

How do you deny an intent to throw a punch by claiming the target ducked a
punch you say you weren't throwing? But people are buying into in droves.
This is ABC, the 'most trusted name in news'!  Behold, the power of
propaganda!

IF the intent was to 'honor' our fallen heroes, THEN why did Koppel
exclude the war dead in Afghanistan?  Koppel included ALL  those who died
in Iraq, not just in combat, but the more than two hundred who died in
accidents, from illnesses, or other non-combat related causes.

ABC began every Nightly News broadcast up until the Iraq War began by
predicting Iraq would become 'another Vietnam' and has spent every one
since attempting to fulfill its own prophecy by recreating it.  ABC wanted
to read out the toll of the war dead, applying a face to each name, not to
'honor' those who fell, but to USE them to convince America the price is
too high. (LIFE Magazine used the same tactic in 1969 to great effect.
Koppel even admitted to being inspired by it.)

A few weeks ago, I went down to North Carolina and met up with some
active-duty Marines.  I talked with three senior staff NCO's who had
recently returned from Iraq and asked them their perspective.   The oldest
man of the group was thirty-four and had served in the first Gulf War.
The three were stationed at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station.

He recalled the way he was received as a returning hero in 1991, and that
he feared his reception when he returns from his next tour in Iraq
(commencing next month), will be more like that of returning Vietnam
veterans.

Another, who also was due to rotate back, said the lack of public support
was really getting to his troopers. They know they are winning, but the
home team seems to be rooting for the opposition, and they aren't exactly
sure what to think.  "Hesitation in battle gets Marines killed," said the
28-year-old veteran.

Later that day, I sat down on the boardwalk with a group of younger
Marines who were stationed at Camp Lejeune.  They had also recently
returned, and were due to rotate back into combat.  To a man, they were
worried about public support for what they are doing.  Every single one of
them believed in their cause, and all of them had stories about the Iraqis
they had helped.

As one of them put it, speaking in Marine, "The xxxxxxx country hasn't
changed since Jesus walked the earth . . . most of them are goat herders
who don't give a xxxx about politics.  They just want to raise their goats
in peace. That's why we are here. They love it that we're here."

Another talked about going from a firefight one day to painting a
classroom the next.

One, about 22 years old, had been involved in some particularly fierce
fighting and had seen several of his buddies killed.  He looked away
toward the waves, and said, "I hope I make it back this time, but if I
don't, I hope it isn't all for nothing."

According to Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam veteran and
the widely respected top Democrat on the military subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee, it already IS for nothing.

Speaking alongside Democratic Minority Leader Senator Nancy Pelosi at her
weekly press conference, Murtha told reporters, "The direction's got to be
changed or it's unwinnable, in my estimation."

I don't think I respond here more clearly than Tom DeLay did, though.

"In a calculated and craven political stunt, the national Democrat Party
declared its surrender in the war on terror. . . But at least -- or
perhaps, at most -- the Washington Democrats finally have taken a position
on the war. And that position -- that baseless, partisan, shocking
position -- is that American troops aren't up to the job."

DeLay pointed out the obvious, although it was lost in the din of partisan
bickering.  "It tells our enemies that if it's unwinnable to us, it's
winnable to them."

Representative Sam Johnson, Texas Republican,  served 29 years in the Air
Force and spent seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.  He said
Rep. Murtha's comments left him feeling exactly as that young Marine told
me felt as he sat on the boardwalk and watched the waves break. That
American politicians would abandon the troops the way they withdrew
support for an American presence in Vietnam and left prisoners of war
behind.

"We left them there in Cambodia and Laos, because of the quitters in the
United States Congress," Johnson reminded the House.

Assessment:

The Iraq POW scandal has eroded public support for both the war and the
troops who are fighting it even further.  The partisans smell the blood in
the water, and if they can, they will continue to build the case that, not
only is this another Vietnam, but it is being fought the kind 'war
criminals' John Kerry said fought there.

There was no intention to 'honor' our troops in the Nightline broadcast --
the object was to USE those who shed their blood for our freedom -- in
order to dishonor their commander. The deception is transparent and
cynical.

(As an aside, I did not find a single John Kerry supporter among the
Marines I spoke with. Neither did I find any who did not respect their
current CiC -- although I tried. It was the first question I asked.)

The declaration that the Iraq war is 'unwinnable' by a sitting member of
Congress was not prompted by a patriotic concern for our national
security -- it was prompted by a partisan concern to unseat the current
administration -- at whatever cost necessary.  Including national
security, public morale and concern for the troops doing the dirty work.

If it isn't illegal, it should be. This isn't Vietnam.  If there IS an
historical analogy, it would be much closer to that of World War Two.
America is fighting for its life against forces dedicated to its physical
destruction. Vietnam posed no such threat.

"The real story here is there are those who see a political opportunity
and are polarizing this," said Rep. Steve Buyer, Indiana Republican and a
lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, who accurately noted that a war
cannot be fought with 435 members of the House and 100 senators trying to
micromanage strategy and troop levels. (That's what happened in Vietnam)

Buyer is right at one level, but on a deeper level, the REAL story here is
that it is working!

"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things
cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." (Ephesians
5:6)

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up
your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke  21:28)